Quote :

"So what changed his mind?"

disco_stu

Simple. Admiral Blair received access to the "high value" intelligence gathered from using harsh interrogation techniques.

Quote :

"But it is a poor decision from ANY angle to make something like torture official policy like you and Cheney seem to want to do, and it's even worse to look the other way when allegations of torture being used with no clear reason crop up. People like you who try to rationalize brutality from the government are how societies slip down the slope of extremism. That the United States doesn't torture is all anyone needs to know."

moron

The official policy of the U.S. government should be to protect it's people by not taking any measures off the table (including the option of something as horrific as nuclear weapons, which we have used before)--as Cheney said, half measures leave you half exposed. Absolutely goddamned right.

The United States will protect its citizens and the homeland by any means necessary. This is all anyone needs to know.

And no one has answered my questions:

Quote :

"Concerning the 'SEALS FTMFW' thread, it's now okay to dunk guys' (the pirates) heads in the water as long as you put bullets in them first? Really?! The justification for killing the pirates was that the captain's life—one life--was in 'imminent danger.' What if hundreds or thousands or millions of lives were in imminent danger (ticking-bomb scenario)? Wouldn't a less-than-lethal enhanced interrogation technique--such as waterboarding--be justified as I have maintained here?"

I await the answers.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 5:24:23 PM

the difference is that we weren't trying to get info from those pirates. we were trying to kill them.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : (because they themselves were an immediate threat)]

5/27/2009 5:38:55 PM

5/27/2009 5:47:04 PM

^^ No. The justification for killing those three pirates was that the captain was in "imminent danger"--and everyone cheered "SEALS FTMFW!"

Quote :

"Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said Phillips, 53, was tied up and in 'imminent danger' of being killed because a pirate on the lifeboat held an AK-47 assault rifle to the back of his head."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/

What if a gun of sorts--say, a nuclear device--were being held to the heads of a million people in a major metropolitan area? Are you really saying that the president couldn't make a decision to dunk a guy's head in the water in order to get information that could prevent a nuclear blast? Really?! I say that such inaction would be gross dereliction of duty and should be prosecuted.

In summary, it's okay to green-light putting three guys' heads in the water--if you put bullets in them first--as long as you're a "progressive"? But if you're a conservative, you're evil incarnate for putting three guys' heads in the water who lived and who we gained "high value information" from that saved many lives?

BTW, the pirates now hate us. Thanks Obama--maybe we should start a dialogue with them, too:

Quote :

"'From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages),' Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. '(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 6:08 PM. Reason : WHY DOES OBAMA HATE BROWN PEOPLE?!!1]

5/27/2009 6:05:47 PM

Quote :

" What if a gun of sorts--say, a nuclear device--were being held to the heads of a million people in a major metropolitan area? Are you really saying that the president couldn't make a decision to dunk a guy's head in the water in order to get information that could prevent a nuclear blast? Really?"

let us know when that happens, k?
Until then, you're living in movie-plot-threat fantasy land

5/27/2009 7:15:09 PM

I think a far better option is to make torture illegal across the board, and let interrogators know that. let them know when they are going into the "interview" what is legal and what is not. The interrogator can then choose to torture or not torture, but, he knows that if he does torture, he will face a trial. And, at the trial, we use the fantastic option of jury nullification if, in fact, the torture was "justified."

basically, let's say that it is unacceptable and let people know it. And then, after the trial, which signals that we, as a nation, think torture is unacceptable on the whole, if we say it's justified in this one instance, we can then defend ourselves on that one instance, instead of trying to defend ourselves on a hypothetical.

"Hey, we think torture is absolutely wrong... But this guy was gonna blow up our whole fucking country and kill every man, woman, and child. What would you have done?" is a much better argument than "Hey, there might be some guy out there that will do something awful, so we are gonna be OK with torture."

5/27/2009 7:20:24 PM

and for the 2nd time in as many days, I'm in complete agreement with aaronburro in an argument against hooksaw

5/27/2009 7:22:58 PM

^^truth. i said pretty much the same thing a week or so ago on here (even down to the jury nullification part)

5/27/2009 10:08:09 PM

Quote :

"I think a far better option is to make torture illegal across the board, and let interrogators know that. let them know when they are going into the "interview" what is legal and what is not. The interrogator can then choose to torture or not torture, but, he knows that if he does torture, he will face a trial. And, at the trial, we use the fantastic option of jury nullification if, in fact, the torture was "justified." "

That is an absolutely terrible way to do business. It's about the stupidest way I can imagine to implement law and policy.

I am pretty thoroughly anti-torture, to include waterboarding. I'm also pragmatic enough to say that there are a few potential scenarios where it should be an option on the table. I think that it should be generally outlawed, but with rather difficult provisions made for its timely use if the situation dictated. It should have to be approved by top level officials (probably to include the POTUS, and maybe representation from at least one of the other branches of gov't), and there should be provisions for the decision for approval to be made public, at least after a specified time (to account for OPSEC concerns).

5/27/2009 10:32:13 PM

and what if that situation is abused (through some sort of blanket application of approval or something)

5/27/2009 10:47:22 PM

Quote :

"The official policy of the U.S. government should be to protect it's people by not taking any measures off the table (including the option of something as horrific as nuclear weapons, which we have used before)--as Cheney said, half measures leave you half exposed. Absolutely goddamned right. The United States will protect its citizens and the homeland by any means necessary. This is all anyone needs to know. "

lol

you're talking about something completely different than what everyone else is talking about. I can't tell if you're trolling, or if I really need to explain this to you.

No one is talking about half measures either. It's curious (not really actually) that you've swallowed Cheney's load about "half measures."

5/28/2009 1:00:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm also pragmatic enough to say that there are a few potential scenarios where it should be an option on the table. I think that it should be generally outlawed, but with rather difficult provisions made for its timely use if the situation dictated. It should have to be approved by top level officials (probably to include the POTUS, and maybe representation from at least one of the other branches of gov't), and there should be provisions for the decision for approval to be made public, at least after a specified time (to account for OPSEC concerns)."

theDuke866

This has been my position from the start.

5/28/2009 4:20:15 PM

Quote :

"I think a far better option is to make torture illegal across the board, and let interrogators know that. let them know when they are going into the "interview" what is legal and what is not. The interrogator can then choose to torture or not torture, but, he knows that if he does torture, he will face a trial. And, at the trial, we use the fantastic option of jury nullification if, in fact, the torture was "justified." basically, let's say that it is unacceptable and let people know it. And then, after the trial, which signals that we, as a nation, think torture is unacceptable on the whole, if we say it's justified in this one instance, we can then defend ourselves on that one instance, instead of trying to defend ourselves on a hypothetical. "Hey, we think torture is absolutely wrong... But this guy was gonna blow up our whole fucking country and kill every man, woman, and child. What would you have done?" is a much better argument than "Hey, there might be some guy out there that will do something awful, so we are gonna be OK with torture.""

Thought I'd drop in to say that this post is well-reasoned and I agree

5/31/2009 7:40:03 PM

My mind is blown that so many of you think that is a proper way of doing business in the legal system. I mean, if jury nullification happens, that's one thing, but to write a half-assed law that you know damned well doesn't cover contingencies, then just blindly hope that juries will consistently do what's reasonable and correct, despite being contrary to the law? You've gotta be shitting me.

5/31/2009 7:49:32 PM

"Torture is illegal" is not a half-assed law. I'd be happy if it were illegal and even people "doing the right thing" under burro's definition got slapped with prison sentences.

That being said, if somebody tortured somebody and it saved millions of lives (unbelievably unlikely, which is why it should be illegal amongst ethical concerns) then perhaps he should get off the hook. But there's no way in hell we should let torture be a normal part of our system.

5/31/2009 8:00:45 PM

I'm agree, and that's not what I'm advocating.

(although I don't think it would take "millions of lives" to justify it. make no mistake, though, i'm definitely anti-torture.)

5/31/2009 8:21:24 PM

Quote :

"that you've swallowed Cheney's load about "half measures."

If Cheney were born 50 year earlier I could see him being a Nazi sympathizer in WW2.

5/31/2009 8:26:10 PM

^^ the problem with contingencies is they can and will be abused.

Something as wrong as torture must be illegal, plain and simple. If someone makes a personal decision to break the law and torture someone else because he thinks it will save X lives, then he's made a moral calculation and will have to live with the consequences.

what would you say if the person in question was an American citizen, instead of a random foreigner like we usually assume? Americans, in addition to being covered by international treaties (like the foreigners we pick up) are also covered by a little thing called The Constitution and the Fifth Amendment. What if the Oklahoma City police had picked up Timothy McVeigh after he put the vans in front of the building, but before they exploded, and the police knew he was about to bomb something, but didn't know what or where? It would be unquestionably illegal to torture him or do anything other than give him due process, but do you think he would find a lot of sympathy if his "head was dunked" and he gave up the location of the van in time to move it or evacuate the area? Would that make what the interrogator did any less illegal? Should we add a 28th amendment that is a "ticking time bomb contingency clause" to the 5th amendment?

6/1/2009 8:30:28 AM

That's why I say that any contingency workaround would have to be OK'd by the very top, and by representatives from at least 2 branches of gov't, and would have to be publicly disclosed (with a time caveat).

6/1/2009 5:51:50 PM

Quote :

"That being said, if somebody tortured somebody and it saved millions of lives (unbelievably unlikely, which is why it should be illegal amongst ethical concerns) then perhaps he should get off the hook."

Str8Foolish

Oh, I don't think it would take anywhere near that number for you to sign on. In fact, I think it would take only one: someone dearer to you than life itself. Say, your beautiful little daughter (I'm guessing you don't have one)?

If some murderous terrorist thugs had your daughter--maybe they're brutalizing her in some way--and the proper authorities managed to get their hands on one of these thugs who had information concerning her whereabouts, you wouldn't want this information obtained by any means necessary? Really?!

If not, you and I are of very different minds on the subject at issue and never the twain shall meet. In contrast, I would want and would insist on all measures being taken to bring my loved one home safely. More important, this logic is even more applicable when considering the utilitarian scenario of "millions of lives" in imminent danger that you casually dismiss as "unlikely."

President Obama disagrees:

Quote :

"President Obama pledged on Tuesday to make nuclear nonproliferation one of his highest priorities, saying he would work with Russia and other countries to 'lock down loose nuclear weapons that could fall into the hands of terrorists.'"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/obama-seeks-advice-on-nuclear-weapons/

Why is Obama "scaremongering"?

6/1/2009 6:43:51 PM

you're an intelligent fellow, i know you don't actually believe that to be scaremongering or in the same ballpark as some of the shit from the last 8 years. be honest now.

6/1/2009 6:48:57 PM

6/1/2009 7:24:32 PM

^^ If you'll look closely, you'll notice that I put "scaremongering" in quotation marks. No, I don't believe Obama is scaremongering concerning loose nukes--because the threat is real. Bush wasn't scaremongering either when he stated that our enemies want to hit us again--because the threat is real.

6/2/2009 11:41:26 AM